Isolating out the misogyny.

Ok this post is a little different: it's not about the Muslim world. It is inspired by McCain's former campaign manager's comments about gay marriage. It made me think about the unifying ability of culture war issues like gay marriage and abortion, and what unifies the GOP without those issues. I don't think, tea parties notwithstanding, that a philosophy of low taxes and little government intrusion is actually the foundation of the GOP. In reality, many doctrinaire Regan-type Republicans are ok with taxes that enable defense spending, and many religious Republicans are ok with government intrusion, as long as it focuses on private intimate conduct and not on regulation of capital markets. I want to explore, in this post, how some coalitions built on culture war issues are made up of groups that should not agree, even when taking into account ugly and irrational positions. The anti-birth control AND anti-abortion stance is one such coalition. People who believe that birth control availability and a right to abortion ought not to be legal must take that stance because they want to punish women who have sex or else because their religion mandates that stance. Neither of these reasons is an acceptable rationale upon which to make national policy.

The forced-birth crowd, aka anti-abortion, anti-sex education AND anti-birth control people, care only about control of women and not about anything else. Disclaimer: I am making these arguments from a disgusting starting point; I do not accept their premises (for example I don't believe that non-white people are inferior to white people).

White racists and people who hate or resent the poor should be pro government-funded birth control and pro abortion. Poor people are disproportionally non-white. Poor people have the most to gain from government funded programs. So, the government would be funding the birth control that helps to prevent people of color from reproducing. Safe, legal abortion would be available as a backup in case pregnancy is unintended and/or the product of sexual assault (and sexual assault is disproportionately common in communities of color.)

Providing birth control is better than just telling poor people and people of color not to have sex since 1) obviously that doesn't work and 2) it's easier just to give people birth control and not have to try to enforce abstinence. Abstinence education costs a lot of money, though I don't know how much in relation to providing birth control costs. However, I'd be surprised if the decrease in unwanted pregnancies didn't save the government money on emergency room trips for uninsured mothers and early-childhood education and health care.

The third reason to give birth control rather than to just tell people of color and poor people not to have sex requires a bit of intellectual honesty on the part of racists, which I know is a tall order. Bear with me: if you are a racist, you think brown people aren't as good as you, a white person. You think they're not as smart, don't make good decisions, lack discipline or fortitude, and aren't as worthy of human rights. This line of thought presupposes that human rights can be deserved, instead of inherent, but that's another post. Anyway, if you really believe people of color don't make good decisions or lack discipline, then why would you expect them to think: "I can't afford a baby, I better suppress my biological urges all the time so I don't get pregnant". That would take good decision-making skills and discipline! If you're a racist, you can't really hope that non-white people acquire discipline or decision-making skills or those good things you think they lack. If they did, that would totally disrupt your white supremacist hierarchy, leaving you without the white privilege that you depend on for your self-esteem. So, if they lack decision-making skills and discipline and those cannot be acquired, you could just make birth control available and then those problems go away.

Those who think that American-style capitalism is the only acceptable model should be on board with America promoting widespread birth control and abortion rights overseas. During the communist era, the US policy abroad was to encourage population control with the use of contraception, in order to maintain capitalism's hegemony by crippling the growth of communist countries. Michelle Goldberg's book, The Means of Reproduction, examines this history. People who work from a colonialist model and wish to guarantee American economic hegemony rather than a cooperative global economy should like the idea of encouraging small family size and widespread use of birth control in the developing world.

People who believe single mothers are irresponsible and bad parents should be in favor of birth control and abortion. The 80's version of single-mother hate came from Reagan's phrase "welfare queen". When people describe single mothers, the stigmatizing effect of the phrase "welfare queen" is still evident. It is present in allegations that single mothers raise kids on food stamps and welfare, and single mothers' kids go to prison. If women had unfettered access to their reproductive rights, we could address this problem, if it is a problem, and if it can be addressed. We would be able to isolate the cases, which I contend would be rare, where women choose to have babies they cannot afford. Why not just tell women not to have sex instead? Because 1) it hasn't worked yet and 2) if you believe single mothers are irresponsible, undisciplined people, then you shouldn't be comfortable banking on their ability to abstain.

And, finally, people who hate abortion should support widespread birth control availability, since it will decrease the abortion rate. I promise, when faced with a low-cost ex-ante method of avoiding unintended pregnancy, women will use that option. Mistakes will be made, but that doesn't mean women aren't rational actors.

Without misogyny, racists, poor-haters, and single-mom haters would be on board with widespread subsidized or free birth control and abortion. I recognize there's a small wrinkle with the people who believe abortion is murder, but we're talking about the disingenuous wingnuts who want to outlaw birth control AND abortion, making family planning and reproductive control a thing of the past. For these people, the problem with birth control is that it takes away reasons not to have sex, and they reject any model in which a woman's sexuality is under her own control. They would rather tell people not to have sex than make it possible for people to engage in sex without the threat of pregnancy. They think sex has consequences. Only bad things have consequences! Good things have "benefits" and morally neutral things have "results". Sex is good. It is an inevitable part of the human experience. It is fun, and free, and it feels good. Why should I refuse to engage in a perfectly healthy, legal, normal activity that I want to do just because a person I have never met says I should?

Sounds like I am saying they hate sex, not that they hate women. Let me be clear: they do hate sex. However, look who absorbs the costs of sex in a world where birth control is not completely avilable: the woman. Look who should have been more careful or worn something different or sent different signals when a rape occurs: the woman. Look who has to "take responsibility" for having sex by carrying a life she didn't intend to create: the woman. If anti-birth control and anti-abortion people hate sex and their perfect model gives women all the resposibility for the costs of sex, that's misogyny. And, without misogyny, the pro-choice movement would have strange allies in the racist, poor-hater communities. I argue that's a good thing because I believe, when it come to keeping women alive and in control of their own bodies, the ends justify the means.

The abortion issue-as-litmus-test is just one situation in which I see the facade of a unified GOP cracking. People inside and outside the party need to regard so-called Republican core issues with a critical eye: to which faction within the GOP is this issue important? Why? How does it relate to the national platform? For example, the more libertarian wing of the party cannot possibly believe that taxes are an affront but interfering in female citizens' bodily integrity is not.